So I spent the weekend trying to get Pro-Lifers on Facebook to answer 2 questions:
Not even seeing the horrible abuse and neglect , Child Poverty by State or the Child Poverty - National statistics could break free their one track mind.
Now I agree that abortions are bad in many ways, however the Pro Lifer's obsession with only one aspect of a child's life seems very disingenuous to me.
"Hey look !!! We did a wonderful thing by making sure that baby was born to an irresponsible person who is impoverished and could not correctly use birth control!!! Yippee!!! Job done!!!"
I was wondering about philosophies, if a parent chooses to have a child:
- The best solution to prevent these terrible procedures and/or babies being raised poorly is to prevent the unwanted conception in the first place. Any pro-active ideas on how to do this in modern America?
- Once the baby is born, it is important that the child is raised well. Any pro-active ways to ensure that these babies you seek to save are not neglected, abused, hungry, homeless, etc? Especially since many of their mothers are poor and single.
Not even seeing the horrible abuse and neglect , Child Poverty by State or the Child Poverty - National statistics could break free their one track mind.
Now I agree that abortions are bad in many ways, however the Pro Lifer's obsession with only one aspect of a child's life seems very disingenuous to me.
"Hey look !!! We did a wonderful thing by making sure that baby was born to an irresponsible person who is impoverished and could not correctly use birth control!!! Yippee!!! Job done!!!"
I was wondering about philosophies, if a parent chooses to have a child:
- does that child owe the parent something for this gift?
- does the parent owe and become responsible for the child?
53 comments:
I'm a tad misanthropic when it comes to the idea that every conception is a blessing, a miracle to be celebrated. I get it. But honestly, reproduction is common, and something that literally every species in the history of this planet has been capable of and has done. It's nothing special, except to those immediately impacted. Ultimately, it's meaningless. Which also means that ending a pregnancy isn't ultimately that important.
Moose
Misanthropic: marked by a hatred or contempt for humankind
//The moral corruption he saw around him made him misanthropic.
Moose,
If you see humans as another animal, then that makes sense...
Are you then okay if we just kill off people who are a drain on our society?
I mean they are just a type of animal that will easily be replaced … And lord knows we have too many of them as is...
Maybe you support Samuel L. Jackson's character idea in Kingsman or the plan of Thanos?
I did get some answers from FB.
Q1: I imagine there is no way to get the Genie back in the bottle. My thought is that increased education and accountability for the result of ones actions would help.
Q2: This is completely doable. The children can be adopted. That is a system that truly provides for the children although it, as much in government, could use some streamlining and accountability. Ideally the parent(s) would be means tested and the child put up for adoption. There is no perfect solution here but there are good options.
At which time I replied.
Now I am a HUGE fan of thorough mandatory sex education. Too many parent(s) do it way too poorly. What education are you thinking?
Where do highly reliable birth control devices and medications fit into your thoughts?
Now how do you intend to hold these irresponsible people accountable? Without harming the babies that we mandate they bring into this world.
I assume you are a Conservative? If so are you okay with having the government determine who is allowed to have how many kids? What criteria would you use? What options? Per the first link I left here, I am fine with it.
Again. I am more concerned about the welfare of the kids. And less concerned about the rights of the adults.
"Are you then okay if we just kill off people who are a drain on our society?"
Your incorrect premise is that I'm okay with killing animals.
Moose
Then apparently either my implying that he was he was Conservative or the challenge of the questions brought things to a grinding halt... :-(
Moose,
You are happy to remove pre-birth animals from their life support system...
So it seemed logical.
"You are happy to remove pre-birth animals from their life support system..."
Did I say I was happy to do it? It's not my decision to make, and I would likely never make it myself. However, I said it's inconsequential. It's also quite common for pregnancies to fail...early on or not so early on. A failed pregnancy is not substantively different than a terminated one, in the grand scheme of things.
Moose
I think we will need to agree to disagree.
The solution is simple. Just eliminate poverty! Everybody knows that as people increase wealth the decrease their child-bearing. Voila!
If only the policies you favor increased the wealth of the middle and lower classes instead of the already wealthy.
Moose
And if he could prove causality...
I have usually found that Parents have more money available when they have fewer kids... Not the other way around...
Those little sweeties are EXPENSIVE. :-)
"If only the policies you favor increased the wealth of the middle and lower classes instead of the already wealthy." --Moose
Moose, you should know that income inequality INCREASED under Obama and is decreasing under President Trump. You also have to understand that a growing economy will ALWAYS produce more income inequality because of simple mathematics.
John, I'm sorry but the statistical proof is overwhelming, whether by country or within the US. 100 years ago large families were the norm here, and then we got wealthier. Queen Charlotte of Britain had 15 children. How many does Queen Elizabeth have? How many grandchildren?
Now you are really trying to confound things by comparing across centuries.
The reality is that birth rates lower as:
- sex education increases
- availability of birth control / abortion improves
All of which you fight against.
Uh-huh. Sure. 100 years ago, people had no idea where babies came from. Some said the stork, some said the cabbage patch. But they needed large families because children tended to die, and many hands were required for subsistence. As their wealth increased, they needed fewer hands, fewer kids died, and people recognized that many children were a financial cost rather than a financial benefit, and had them only for other reasons. You keep treating children as some sort of plague on society, to be avoided, or a privilege to be allotted to the worthy few at YOUR sole discretion. That's a rather misanthropic view.
As for "improving abortion," there is no such thing. One person always dies in this "simple medical procedure." And your solution is to prohibit the possibility of a child altogether, rather than killing it later on. Better, perhaps, but still terribly inhuman.
I can find nothing to back up your claim that income inequality is improving.
Moose
Jerry,
Are you saying that wealthier people stop having SEX?
If so I never want to be wealthy!!! :-)
The reason why wealthy people can have smaller families is because they have easy access to reliable forms of birth control, and they are educated regarding how and when to use it.
Those things that you want to with hold from our poor folk.
With that in mind
Video Protestants
Video Catholics
"The reason why wealthy people /can/ have smaller families..." is because of those things you cite. The reason they CHOOSE smaller families is because they want to donate more time to each one, and because they are busy with jobs and other self-actualizing activities, beyond the daily survival their wealth provides.
Moose, look it up, well-known fact about income inequality. And if you can't, I will explain to you why it is necessarily so.
Jerry,
And you think that poor people would not choose to have fewer kids if we helped them to:
- learn about sex and contraception
- make it more readily affordable and free
You don't think they would like to have more time and money to spend on their smaller family? So puzzling...
I tried to look up anything regarding income inequality since Trump... It does not exist. I assume the data is not mature.
Why do you continue to believe that "poor people" are too stupid to know where babies come from? It's not exactly secret knowledge and I don't think you need to teach it to them. And if they want contraception it's pretty cheap, even free in many places. If you want to fault them for not seeking it out, you can, but if they won't seek it out for themselves, what good does it do for you to offer it?
As for your topic, it seems that pro-choice people are equally single-minded. You are trying to argue from the extremes, where one side argues for "no abortion, at no time, for nobody, for any reason" and the other wants "any abortion, anytime, for anybody, for any reason." Survey says the former is a minority, but twice as popular as the latter, and everybody else is somewhere in between. It seems the NY law is at the extreme.
Jerry,
If quality birth control is so cheap, then it would cost us little to make it free for them.
Knowledge is power, you strive to keep knowledge from those who need it most.
The NY law clearly defines limits.
- <24 weeks
- fetus is not viable
- fetus putting mother's life at significant risk
I am not sure why you keep denying that those very clearly defined limitations exist?
All I know is what I read in the papers, and the papers are chock full of quotes saying it allows abortion on demand until the baby is delivered and Mom "decides to let it live." I also looked at the preamble to the actual law, and clearly the intent is to remove all restrictions on the grisly practice.
Supposedly the justification is the fear that Roe v. Wade might be overturned if RBG doesn't outlive the Trump Presidency. If that were true, then abortion law would be returned to the states, whereas Roe now commands that states may NOT regulate below 20 weeks, but MAY regulate after 20 weeks, with exceptions for both. So if Roe is overturned, why not simply codify Roe into NY (and other) STATE law, which is pretty much what you have quoted as the NY law, and which every news outlet seems to say is NOT what is in the bill.
For example, the NY law supposedly removes the requirement for "informed consent." Good idea, since it is the only life-threatening surgery (not even accounting for the fetus) not requiring it.
infanticide to be legal
Jerry,
The madness continues... If your 1 year old is only living because they are hooked up to life support. Who do you want choosing if the plug should be pulled? The politicians or you and the doctor? Would you call that infantcide?
Now did you actually read the source research report for that piece you linked to?
It seems to mostly be concerned with the 20 - 24 week abortions and which women are harmed if 20 weeks is used.
"Results
Women aged 20–24 were more likely than those aged 25–34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks’ gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.
Conclusion
Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources. "
So, based on your latest research, here, your idea to reduce 24 weeks to 16 weeks would seem to be an error. But that does not change the medical condition that exists between a pregnancy at 24 and at 20. At 24 weeks the fetus is most likely viable, and the danger of the procedure to the mother has increased. Put the dividing line where you want, recognizing those factors, but not at 40 weeks.
Jerry: "Moose, look it up, well-known fact about income inequality. And if you can't, I will explain to you why it is necessarily so."
John: "I tried to look up anything regarding income inequality since Trump... It does not exist. I assume the data is not mature."
That is now two people (me and John) who cannot corroborate your assertion of a "well-known fact". Perhaps it's only "well-known" to Trumpers...whose grasp of the truth slips more and more each day?
Moose
first result of google
Simple economic fact: In times of economic slowdowns, those whose income derives from labor and wages lose out, while those whose income derives from investments stays steady or even grows. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer because governments like Obama's cause such economic circumstances, and governments like Trump's, who produce economic growth, create a "tide that lifts all boats."
John may be right, the assessments may not yet be in for the Trump years, but the fundamental economic mechanism-- that inequality increases in depressed economies and lessens in growing ones-- should be expected to be found true when the data IS available.
And if you look at which countries have the most inequality, they are POOR countries, while the relatively rich countries have less, depending on how you measure. theguardian
Jerry,
You avoided my questions.
If your 1 year old is only living because they are hooked up to life support.
Who do you want choosing if the plug should be pulled?
The politicians, or you and the doctor?
Would you call that infanticide?
I think my next post will go further into this since the Pro Life FB folks are going nuts over this topic...
Regarding equity...
You did notice that some of the most equitable were in Canada and in Europe...
Just curious.
‘In times of economic slowdowns, those whose income derives from labor and wages lose out, while those whose income derives from investments stays steady or even grows. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer because governments like Obama's cause such economic circumstances, and governments like Trump's, who produce economic growth, create a "tide that lifts all boats." ‘
Holy Fake News, Batman!!
It may quite literally be the fakest news I’ve read in a while, and that’s with competition from the Master Con Artist himself.
The slowdown happened on Republicans’ watch. The economic growth started with Obama, and Trump hasn’t yet managed to screw it up.
Thanks, Obama!
Moose
Seriously...jerry's link is from FIVE years ago.
There's a reason I don't trust jerry or Republicans like him.
Moose
What would you call it, suicide? You posit an extreme case, yet something we do with our badly injured or ailing adults all the time. Not applicable here. Our standard of care for a child born alive, even prematurely, is to try to keep the child alive. We used to prosecute parents who killed their infants, or people who killed a pregnant woman. Do we now sweep aside those laws recognizing sacred human life?
Is the outrage over statements like this not well deserved?
"Gov. Northam said that, under a bill he supports, a baby born alive could be “kept comfortable” and then “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired” – the implication being that the baby could be left to die if the family decided they did not want to keep their child."
So are you saying that your grand baby is on life support.
The doctor(s) and parent(s) have decided that the baby is suffering too much and/or will have no quality of life because of massive chronic problems
You really want someone other than the Parent(s) and Doctor to decide if the plug can be pulled?
Who would that be exactly?
What process do you recommend?
Or do recommend that we keep all babies on life support for ever?
How about we keep viable babies on "life support" at least until they exit the womb?
Nobody is even discussing removing viable babies from life support after 24 weeks.
Except that tiny tiny percentage of fetuses who are actually putting their mother's life at risk.
Then why the near-unanimous uproar and celebration that we now allow abortion up until week 40? Life of the mother was ALWAYS the exception in Roe v. Wade and accepted by the majority of pro-life Americans.
Because you read conservative news sources who work to mislead.
Definitely-- right-wing fake news like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN...
And I especially like how my right wing news sources lie by quoting the exact words spoken.
For which, by the way, some of them have apologized, did you notice?
Weird that I read the same news sources and was somehow able to understand what’s real.
Moose
VOX VA Bill
Moose, I applaud you for having the great gift of all liberals-- the ability to hold two entirely contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time and claim they are both true.
Only simpletons and Republicans are unable to entertain competing thoughts.
Moose
The only people I've seen bandying fake news about are the Conservative/Republican/Evangelical/Right-Wing Catholic sources claiming that mothers can now kill their 'babies' up until birth.
I know that's false on the face of it, because Roe v. Wade does not allow for that.
So, unless you're arguing about something else entirely, you're a purveyor of fake news (this isn't the first time), and thus your views are rightly ignored.
Moose
So, Cuomo et al are liars? And all these new laws do is codify Roe v. Wade? If you can show me where Roe v. Wade prohibits 3rd-trimester abortions or "month 10" abortions, I'll believe these laws are "unconstitutional" rather than just wicked.
Jerry,
What exactly are you talking about? Source?
It’s very simple. The court decided that fetal viability would be the measuring stick. A 50/50 chance of surviving happens around the 24th week. They have never removed the exceptions.
Moose
Just a note. Medical technology is much better then 1973...
Weeks to viability should likely be lower now.
The ruling about viability was updated in the 90s.
Moose
Thanks for the info. I wonder why NY picked 24...
"The plurality found that continuing advancements in medical technology had proven that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe."
Never mind the language of the bill. The liberal rejoicing is regarding the "fine print" that "the choice" will now be far easier than it was.
the choice of killing
I moved to over here.
Post a Comment